The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Threshold Approach to Clinical Decision Making
Abstract
The physician's estimate of the probability that a patient has a particular disease is a principal factor in the determination of whether to withhold treatment, obtain more data by testing, or treat without subjecting the patient to the risks of further diagnostic tests. Using the concepts of decision analysis, we have derived expressions for two threshold probabilities involved in this choice: a "testing" threshold and a "test-treatment" threshold. Values can be assigned to these thresholds from data on the reliability and potential risks of the diagnostic test and the benefits and risks of a specific treatment. Treatment should be withheld if the probability of disease is smaller than the testing threshold, and treatment should be given without further testing if the probability of disease is greater than the test-treatment threshold. The test should be performed (with treatment depending on the test outcome) only if the probability of disease is between the two thresholds. The method exposes important principles of decision making and helps the clinician develop a rational, quantitative approach to the use of diagnostic tests.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 · Cited by 28,810
Lichtenstein, S., & Fischhoff, B. (1980) · Organizational Behavior and Human Performance · doi:10.1016/0030-5073(80)90052-5 · Cited by 375
Cited by
Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models
Vickers, A. J., & Elkin, E. B. (2006) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x06295361 · Cited by 6,341
Assessing the Performance of Prediction Models: A Framework for Traditional and Novel Measures
Steyerberg, E. W., Vickers, A. J., Cook, N. R., Gerds, T., Gonen, M., Obuchowski, N., Pencina, M. J., & Kattan, M. W. (2010) · Epidemiology · doi:10.1097/ede.0b013e3181c30fb2 · Cited by 5,170
A simple, step-by-step guide to interpreting decision curve analysis
Vickers, A. J., van Calster, B., & Steyerberg, E. W. (2019) · Diagnostic and Prognostic Research · doi:10.1186/s41512-019-0064-7 · Cited by 1,174
A readers' guide to the interpretation of diagnostic test properties: clinical example of sepsis
Fischer, J. E., Bachmann, L. M., & Jaeschke, R. (2003) · Intensive Care Medicine · doi:10.1007/s00134-003-1761-8 · Cited by 890
Uncertainty in the economic evaluation of health care technologies: the role of sensitivity analysis
Briggs, A., Sculpher, M., & Buxton, M. (1994) · Health Economics · doi:10.1002/hec.4730030206 · Cited by 521
Metadata
- Authors
- Pauker, S. G., & Kassirer, J. P.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 1980-05-15
- Volume
- 302
- Issue
- 20
- Pages
- 1109-1117
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2019273574
- Cited by
- 1,358
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 31.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Threshold Approach to Clinical Decision Making. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm198005153022003
- The paper
- Pauker, S. G., & Kassirer, J. P. (1980). The Threshold Approach to Clinical Decision Making. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm198005153022003
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
